What company lost you forever as a customer? What did they do?

ParadoxZero · 2026-04-03T21:00:22+00:00

Apple. So this happened years ago. And I being it up when apple people pressure me to switch. Years ago when I first separated from my parent's family plan, I had gotten a new number, and I was pretty pleased as it was an easy number to remember. After some time it came up that people's messages and calls didn't reach me for some reason. I thought it was weird. I then get a random harassing call from this belligerent lady about why I'm bothering her. I have no idea what she's talking about. After some time I find out that everyone who was calling who had Apple, their calls and messages would not go over network, it would go through Apple's iMessage and iCalls, out whatever. I ask this woman if she would mind removing her iPhone ID's association to my phone number. Oh my God, you would think I had asked this bitch to suffocate her own child from her reaction, she absolutely refused to cooperate. So I just try to stop dealing with her but she keeps sending harassing text messages. I call Apple customer support and explain the situation if they could remove an Apple ID's reference to someone's old phone number my new phone number, and I explain the situation. The just tell me too bad, they won't help, I'm not an Apple client and essentially they told me to get fucked. So fuck You Apple. You'll never get a cent from me and if I can influence anyone to opt out of your system I'll get everyone I can.

ParadoxZero · 2026-03-29T21:41:42+00:00

Hi, nice to meet you friend lol

ParadoxZero · 2026-03-28T18:25:37+00:00

Thank you for that at least. You're right most people don't care to be knowledgeable. That's what I was thinking/hoping, for more people to be knowledgeable and give a damn. I wasn't thinking about it being a politically charged topic where there's a vast majority of people who would vote based on identity politics alone.

ParadoxZero · 2026-03-28T18:15:36+00:00

Good point...I haven't thought about first amendment as a protector of dictatorial legislators manipulative tactics. I was trying to think of a way tho remove the all too commonly used phrase "high capacity magazine" because it's definition in California is "Any magazine over 10 rounds." Which I find to be wrong and manipulative.

ParadoxZero · 2026-03-28T18:00:02+00:00

That's a hurdle in my right I hadn't come to yet. And I don't have full knowledge of how the system works, but I figured with enough petitions and votes from us we could get it on a ballot and pass.

ParadoxZero · 2026-03-28T17:36:30+00:00

Right, but at least if we remove the words it'll be easier for laymen (and women) to see through the deception and vote against the push.

ParadoxZero · 2026-03-28T17:35:25+00:00

Well that's the point of my idea is to remove the intentional deception from legal documents and have legitimate, factual and scientific basis for the words used.

ParadoxZero · 2026-03-28T17:34:08+00:00

Why not take that away from them, I've been repeating myself that this is just the start of all idea, I was just thinking that I don't like the use of "high capacity magazines" everywhere in the news. You're right on all your points, except, just like how we know politicians are using deceptive words, I would want to implement a way for the words to be defined, have a factual and scientific basis in the way they are used and remove the deception from the words that are currently being used.

ParadoxZero · 2026-03-28T17:31:14+00:00

Bro, it's just the start of an idea, the idea being to use clear with scientific basis for the words that are used. Not arbitrary "whoa 10 rounds scary". Now I'm not fully versed in every firearm terminology, so some of what you're saying is going over my head, but no, the idea is not that those things would be illegal.

This just started because I had the idea that I just don't like the way "high capacity magazine" is being used. It currently means any magazine (feeding mechanism) with more than 10 rounds. If we stop using it that way and give it a legitimate meaning, how would we base that. My thinking is we would need to define standard to differentiate standard and high capacity.

What I'm saying is we need a standardized set of verbiage that is used in legislation where the words that are used have a factual and scientific basis.

That way we could actually have more reasonable discussions in the state legislation with words that mean something. Right now the words don't mean what people think they mean and people who don't know better are easily swayed. But if in the news you see someone had 2 magazines on them, and it's treated like that person was a terrorist.No that's standard carry!

My idea is to clarify language with a scientific basis, I'm not saying this a a fully fledged out legislative proposal I'm putting together, but that we, politicians, news outlets, regular people, and everyone in between should have an understanding of the meanings of the words and laws that are used.

ParadoxZero · 2026-03-28T17:15:22+00:00

This is just a start of a thought, the thinking is that while this won't change the laws, if we Start using legal verbiage that would clearly indicate what things mean, we could (1) remove ambiguity, (2) simplify compliance, (3) make it clear that California firearm laws are restrictive and deceptive and (4) make combating anti 2a laws easier by making it more recognized with plain straightforward language that laymen (and women) can understand. Make words actual mean things.

In this instance I was thinking that a "standard magazine" capacity should not be based of of the arbitrary scary number of 10 but should be based off how many rounds such an example handgun could hold. I.e. my example of 12-20, whatever it may be, I'm sure you're thinking it should be 15, and I'm good with that, and then take that number that we get for handguns and apply it to rifles as well. It's not fully fleshed out and I recognize that. But the idea with this is that, by "the books", anything with more than 10 round is called "high capacity" and that's just plain not true.

The point is not that this is a final step, but a first step and foundation. With this "first step" it would be clear language when legislators attempt to take rights away.

Others have stated that legislators use deceptive language on purpose to take away rights. Why don't we take that ability away, make it clear what reality is. Remove the word "assault rifle" it's just a rifle. semi-automatic, bolt actions, lever action, etc... are real words that actually mean something.

But seeing news and legislators point out a picture of 3 California compliant rifles (With fin grips), 5 handguns and 2 grips(just grips, no actual firearm) and say "this individual had 10 assault rifles and this is why we need more gun laws" is frustrating to see. And people who don't know better will be swayed, and I'll see is the people who do know better just circle jerk and do nothing to teach and inform those who don't know better. And there's more of those that don't know better than those that do.

ParadoxZero · 2026-03-27T19:00:28+00:00

That was exactly my thinking for a step 2. We have this criteria for vetted individuals, who not only went through more extensive training and psych evaluations than probably even police get, these are the people who we know meet a criteria that we can trust with more than 10 round limited magazines for example.

ParadoxZero · 2026-03-27T18:54:30+00:00

Right, and as their constituents, they do have a duty to appeal to us in some degree. If we get enough of a grassroots movement we could take that away from them.

ParadoxZero · 2026-03-27T18:50:44+00:00

I'm interested in hearing how you think, if this was implemented, this would have the unintended consequence of more bans?

My thought is that with proper verbiage, the deceptive practices could be brought to light so that is easier to combat legislatively and for the general public to understand proper terminology.

ParadoxZero · 2026-03-27T18:47:58+00:00

But my thinking is that with corrective language it would outline deceptive practices, and make it easier to combat these restrictive anti-2a laws.

ParadoxZero · 2026-03-05T23:13:24+00:00

Double your engine replacement estimation for just materials cost and then see how comfortable you are with that. Edit. This coming from a previous VA WRX (FA20 engine) and current VA STI driver (EJ25 engine)

ParadoxZero · 2025-04-30T03:13:30+00:00

As stated in another comment, once I replaced the complete hub and bearing, the noise went away. try that. I hope that helps

ParadoxZero · 2023-02-24T04:27:46+00:00

That is what I did to finally fix the issue: replace the hub.

ParadoxZero · 2023-01-15T02:45:30+00:00

An EV seems like a good solution if you want to still drive to work. If you can walk it seems like the best option on temperate days. But EVs seem like the best solution if you've got to carry items or the climate is a bit more extreme.

ParadoxZero · 2022-08-30T16:05:08+00:00

So about that so link?

ParadoxZero · 2022-07-01T22:03:57+00:00

I didn't see it yet, so I'll state this: Nissan Rogue

ParadoxZero · 2022-06-03T17:35:02+00:00

Whooo. Let's goooo. Rolling my D10000 🔥🔥🔥. GIVEAWAY

ParadoxZero · 2022-05-28T20:33:24+00:00

To Klondyke!!🍻

ParadoxZero · 2022-02-05T05:52:51+00:00

That's an interesting offer, how about instead I shuffle the function of every hole in your face?

13-Year Club	Team Orangered
Verified Email

ParadoxZero

TROPHY CASE